Mere User Of Encroached Forest Land Does Not Grant Locus Standi To Challenge Eviction Order: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-07-04

Legal Awareness & Information.

No Right to Challenge Eviction from Forest Land for Mere User, Holds Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shimla , HP – In a significant ruling on environmental and property law, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that individuals who merely use a path or road illegally constructed on forest land have no locus standi (right to appear in court) to challenge an eviction order against the encroachers. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua dismissed a writ petition filed by two individuals who sought to restore a road built on protected forest land, which had been ordered to be removed by the Collector of Forest Division, Kullu.

---

A Brief Overview of the Case

The case, Nishant Mahajan & Anr. vs. State of HP , involved a challenge to an eviction order dated August 22, 2022. This order was passed against the Block Development Officer, Naggar, and the Gram Panchayat, Nasogi, for illegally constructing a cemented road on forest land identified as Khasra No. 1328.

The petitioners, Nishant Mahajan and his father, were not parties to the original eviction proceedings. They filed the writ petition claiming to be aggrieved parties because the demolished road provided the only access to their private property. They argued that its removal violated their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to access.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments: * Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate for the petitioners, argued that his clients were direct beneficiaries of the road and its closure caused them immense hardship. * He contended that the petitioners were necessary parties to the eviction case and the order passed without hearing them was a violation of natural justice. * Citing State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma , he emphasized that for residents of hilly areas, "access to road is access to life itself."

State's and Intervener's Arguments: * Advocate General Mr. Anup Rattan and Senior Advocate Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, representing the state and an intervener respectively, strongly contested the petitioners' locus standi . * They argued that the dispute was between the Forest Department (the landowner) and the encroachers (the Gram Panchayat and BDO). The petitioners, being strangers with no ownership rights over the forest land, could not legally challenge the eviction. * They highlighted that the petitioners had suppressed material facts, including a prior eviction order from the same land in 2016 against their predecessors-in-title and an unsuccessful challenge to the current eviction order in a previous petition.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles Applied

The High Court meticulously dissected the petitioners' claims and found them legally untenable on several grounds.

On Locus Standi: The court held that the petitioners' claim was, at best, an assertion of an easementary right, which the Collector under the H.P. Public Premises Act has no jurisdiction to decide. The judgment clarified: > "Merely because a private person has used the Government land as path would not make him a necessary party to the litigation instituted by the owner of the land against the offenders who had encroached & broken the forest land... Mere user of encroachment over the encroached/broken forest land would not make a person necessary party in the eviction proceedings..."

On the Nature of the Land: The court affirmed that the land in question (Khasra No. 1328) was unequivocally forest land. It referenced its own history, noting that a 2016 demarcation report found Deodar , Kail, and Popular trees on it. The court also relied on the expansive definition of "forest land" established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India , which includes any area recorded as forest in government records, irrespective of its dictionary meaning.

On Suppression of Facts and Finality of Orders: The court took a dim view of the petitioners' conduct, noting they had presented "distorted facts" by claiming the road was ancient and used by the general public, which was factually incorrect. Furthermore, the court highlighted two crucial points:

An earlier eviction order concerning the same Khasra number was passed in 2016 against the very person from whom the petitioners bought their land. That order became final and absolute.

The petitioners had already challenged the 2022 eviction order in a previous petition (CMPMO No. 126 of 2024), which was dismissed. By not reserving the liberty to re-agitate the issue, they were barred from raising it again under the principles of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC.

Final Decision and Its Implications

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it. The judgment serves as a strong reminder that convenience or personal benefit cannot override statutory prohibitions against the use of forest land for non-forestry purposes without prior central government approval. It reinforces the legal principle that only parties with a direct legal interest in a dispute, not incidental beneficiaries of an illegal act, have the right to challenge a court's order. This decision bolsters the powers of forest authorities to act decisively against encroachment, protecting ecologically sensitive areas from unauthorized constructions.